I guess I'm warming up to writing in this blog again, because I've started thinking about it between posting. And I did some thinking in the shower just now.
***
I realize those "bitch" quotes had a bit of the shock factor in them, but I don't apologize for that. As you can see, winning a lot of friends is not one of my objectives in writing this blog. In fact, maybe it would be more accurate to say that I would be more pleased to have a any friends I may have at the end of it all be true friends that have been filtered through all the false veneers. That is to say, you, the reader may well not be part of my reference group, although it's also possible that you are - after all I don't know who is reading this.
I don't know about you, but sometimes it's quite irksome when people seem to agree with you but you feel like they don't really understand what you're saying. And then it can be hard to get them to see that they really don't understand, despite their profuse objections to being labeled as such.
That's not why I included those quotes though; I included them because it seemed to feed off of the discussion at hand and it does fit how I feel, at least now. This kind of sentiment, if it existed at all in me when I was in Vienna, would only have been in the very earliest stages of development and as such not very identifiable yet.
***
Another issue that it might be good to clearly identify, although I have been mentioning it here and there all along, is that of anachronism. Although anachronism can take many forms, for our purposes I am specifically talking about when during my life I held different attitudes and the like. For example, in talking about a specific time period (e.g., my Vienna years), I am trying to let you know if a perspective wasn't held (or developed or become conscious) until a later time.
It's hard to avoid talking about things before and after the specific period being covered, but this could result in some confusion for the reader. Some of the texts I'm using, however, are so enlightening regarding other times in my life that I'm afraid if I don't mention the pertinence to these other time periods in my discussion of a text these insights to other phases of my life might go overlooked altogether. Or sometimes it's hard to explain the relevance (or irrelevance, as the case might be) of the text at hand without bringing in other phases of my life.
Nevertheless, I hope you don't come away with a Raphaelesque anachronostic sense of my life (cp. the Wikipedia article on his painting "The Marriage of the Virgin"). Sure, there were elements of my present make-up that were in existence in the 1980s, but I wasn't then what I am now in a whole lot of ways. The same can generally be said of most everyone, but I think some people experience more changes (how many changes) than others and/or greater (more substantial) changes than others, for a variety of reasons. The aspects in my life that have been especially potent drivers of change are, first of all, my pensive and reflective personality, but also my work/career changes and changes in living circumstances. That is, these things were drivers of change, not the change themselves, and there were external and internal drivers that facilitated change.
If you knew my life at all (which you only know precious little of yet, unless you know me personally outside of this blog), I think you'd see that what I'm saying about myself is a no brainer. So I'm saying this for those who don't know me outside this blog or have only known me for a limited time that doesn't include some of these life-changing situations and/or the opportunity to really know my personality.
A final caveat: Although I've thought about many of the things I discuss on this blog a lot over the years and am a relatively introspective and astute person, there is always the chance that I inadvertently involve myself in some anachronism. This is hard to avoid, much in the same way that researchers have a hard time extricated themselves from research to reach some golden objective standard, which may actually be impossible to obtain despite the best precautions.
So what I'm saying is, I'm doing my best to keep the time frames clear to the reader, but I may not be perfect. So do as I say and not as I do: cut me some slack. And if you notice such apparent anachronisms (or just plain confusing mumbo-jumbo) and want to point them out I'm willing to entertain them. It could be a simple mistake (like a big typo) or unclear language, or it could be a more substantial conceptual issue that I need to address.
While I shouldn't need to apologize for some chronological skipping around, since that is a fairly common stylistic tool in literature, it should be clear as to what belongs in what time period even with the skipping around. If the skipping around results in something along the lines of Raphael's "Wedding of the Virgin", then communication has gone haywire somewhere along the line, and my hope is that my writing isn't that glaringly anachronistic! Nevertheless, even lesser anachronisms should probably be clarified.
~ Meg
Showing posts with label bitch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bitch. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
127. Socialization File, Pt. 10 (Dubin, pt. 10)
I'm finding more sections in this chapter to comment on than in previous texts I've discussed on this blog that I hadn't marked up in my initial reading of it. Here's an example of that...
"...[P]art of the organizational process involves the individual's continual adjustment to the demands of the various subgroups in which he participates within the social system.
...[T]he term 'reference group' is used here to signify the group whose perspective is used by the novice as a frame of reference for defining his organizational experiences and expectations." (p. 91)
I really should have continue with this last night, but I hadn't realized that these unmarked-up sections needed commenting on.
I think this is really significant in terms of my Vienna experience. Who did I see as my reference groups? In looking back, I think that I saw as my reference groups mainly the people in Eastern Europe and Vienna that I might have ministry with, and I saw the mission itself only in secondary terms as a vehicle for reaching those people... at least at first I did. But then gradually I think the role of the mission in my "reference group" options greatly diminished as I realized that we had pretty divergent views on what was needed for ministry. I wasn't really aware of this, I don't think, at the time, because I couldn't imagine ministry without going through a mission and refused to give up the desire of ministry. Of course, this became a great conflict, then, for me. Eventually the mission did take on a greater "reference group" role, but it was, ironically, at the expense of the ministry target people as a "reference group" in my life. My view of the target peoples (Austrians, East Europeans) as a reference group had developed over the years (1979-1985) of my formal higher education, short-term and part-time ministries and living and studying in that part of the world. I don't think my view of the target people really changed during this time, or even later when I actually lived in Siberia for several years, but it began to take a back seat to the mission as a reference group the last months of my tenure with the mission.
Now this, as you can imagine, is not really how organizations, especially total ones, expect things to be set up. No, they want the front seat from the get go. But I hadn't joined the military (or the CIA) and I expected the mission to be a reasonable organization, which was (in my view) an errant perspective. That is, unlike many (but not all) other ministries, they didn't seem very open to new ideas about ministry and the issue was only, plain and simple, how well you were going to accept their way of doing things (and if you asked too many questions you probably didn't have the right attitude yet, although by asking the questions you'd undoubtedly clarify where exactly the problems were coming from in your not conforming.)
Another problem here is that it was pretty hard for me to identify with the reference group that I was supposed to be the most like - the other secretaries. The thing was, and I think I've mentioned this before, that I didn't really see myself as a secretary. All my studies had been for full-time mission work and I'd only taken on office jobs (often temp jobs) to earn money while I prepared for the professional work I'd studied for. It's very possible that if the mission had give me a different reference group I'd have succumbed more easily.
***
"To an individual, a reference group is an audience - shared, real or imagined - to whom certain values are assigned. More importantly, this audience is the one before which the individual is trying to maintain or increase his standing." (p. 91)
This most definitely does not describe my view of the other secretaries as a reference group. It's not that I didn't want to associate with them, it's just that they weren't my reference group and I didn't particularly see them in that way, as I've just explained above. I didn't really care too much what the other secretaries thought of me and I didn't want to be like them, not that there was anything wrong with them, but they just weren't what I aspired to or how I viewed myself. I didn't see a conflict between working as a secretary and having people-ministry, where the people ministry was more fundamental to my view of myself and working as a secretary was just a stepping stone along the way. Even at the time I was conscious of not viewing myself as a secretary, but I might not have realized the significance of that vis a vis the mission's socialization attempts.
Here I'm going to sort of go off in a tangent, but not a totally irrelevant one.
In recent years I've come to the realization that Evangelical groups are mostly pretty sexist and the roles for women in them are rather limited; being a secretary is one possibility, for example. There were a couple women instructors with the Vienna mission that taught courses for women in-country (i.e., in Eastern Europe), but there weren't any male secretaries, for example.
Another role that, apart from my experience with the Vienna mission, that I found might have been open to me is that of translator to help men gain access to ministry in Russia, for example. This, to me, is pretty demeaning because I only learned the language as part of the whole package of preparing for ministry and not to be some man's translator. To many in Evangelical circles, as you maybe can imagine, this kind of thinking is feminist, and I mean that very derogatorily, because that's how they'd use the word to describe such thinking.
I've been trying to find a short quote I know I've heard several times (but not recently), but in looking for it I found some close cousins to it:
"Being a Heartless Bitch isn't about stepping on other people, or reality TV-style sabotage antics. Its about working hard for what you want, and knowing when to stand up for what you deserve. Its not about demoralizing others; its about self-empowerment. Its not about being arrogant; its about displaying your confidence and intellect as a badge of pride. Its not asserting any inherent superiority or self-entitlement, but recognizing your own self-worth and value."
-- Kat D.
"I do get called a bitch quite often. What I do NOT get called is pushover, stupid, sweetheart, dear or doormat. Works for me."
-- Rebecca M.
Here's one that really touches a nerve for me (pun intended - sorry): -- Fabulana
Finally...
I wish I knew this earlier in life, but I had a lot going against me, including family and church upbringing, and it took a lot, mainly being separated from those two influences by half a world (geographically - and I mean Siberia here, not Vienna), to grow more fully in my confidence that I could do significant things on my own.
In any case, returning to my Vienna years now, I didn't exactly see things in this way; I just knew what I believed and didn't like what a lot of what I saw and experienced in Vienna, although much of it was very difficult to make sense of at the time. I didn't think of it in gendered terms, for example. Still, the training and knowledge that I did have even then was enough to help me try to hold my own in the midst of tremendous forces working against that. And don't get me wrong, the gender issue was not necessarily the worst thing I disagreed with. There was, for example, also the politicization of the ministry and the pragmatism (ends justifies the means) mentality.
But getting back to the reference group issue, the "target people" (it really is insensitive to use that term though, like for a marketing campaign in which people take on object status; if I think of a better term that isn't overly convoluted I'll try to start using it, but maybe this one's not completely inaccurate either) were a significant reference for me in that I wanted to really understand them and lower barriers as much as was possible without compromising my faith (e.g., without doing something that would be sin, like joining them in their vodka drinking), but I thought the mission and my church(es - the one in Vienna and back home too) should provide the Christian guidance. Boy, was I mistaken. What I learned in Vienna about that is that the Bible is a tool to be used to back up anything and everything the mission does and to reveal my errors (sins?) in not conforming.
So the mission never really did become a strong reference group for me, I guess, and that proved a barrier to my working with them. But I did see them as holding the golden key to a life of ministry, without which (the key), the ministry I so desired as a career would be virtually impossible (or so I thought at the time). I think this isn't the first time I've shown you the conflict I experienced, but here's another take on it.
I did want to "maintain or increase" my standing with the group, but I equally did not want to compromise my beliefs and values based solely on the desire to "maintain or increase" that standing. That is, I felt that I was being asked to change things that would have implications beyond the isolated context of that ministry, and would have affected some of my most basic beliefs and values. I think it's safe to say that I was conscious of this at the time, which is part of why I could resist succumbing to their ways as much as I did. And when I did in the end begin to succumb it was late enough that they were setting the stage for my departure and I didn't really ever change my thinking (at least not in ways they would have wanted), just my external relations. And when I get to this in the chronology, you'll see that they understood this too.
***
I need to go because I finished my morning stimulator (like a souped up TENS unit) long ago and I need to get breakfast.
"...[P]art of the organizational process involves the individual's continual adjustment to the demands of the various subgroups in which he participates within the social system.
...[T]he term 'reference group' is used here to signify the group whose perspective is used by the novice as a frame of reference for defining his organizational experiences and expectations." (p. 91)
I really should have continue with this last night, but I hadn't realized that these unmarked-up sections needed commenting on.
I think this is really significant in terms of my Vienna experience. Who did I see as my reference groups? In looking back, I think that I saw as my reference groups mainly the people in Eastern Europe and Vienna that I might have ministry with, and I saw the mission itself only in secondary terms as a vehicle for reaching those people... at least at first I did. But then gradually I think the role of the mission in my "reference group" options greatly diminished as I realized that we had pretty divergent views on what was needed for ministry. I wasn't really aware of this, I don't think, at the time, because I couldn't imagine ministry without going through a mission and refused to give up the desire of ministry. Of course, this became a great conflict, then, for me. Eventually the mission did take on a greater "reference group" role, but it was, ironically, at the expense of the ministry target people as a "reference group" in my life. My view of the target peoples (Austrians, East Europeans) as a reference group had developed over the years (1979-1985) of my formal higher education, short-term and part-time ministries and living and studying in that part of the world. I don't think my view of the target people really changed during this time, or even later when I actually lived in Siberia for several years, but it began to take a back seat to the mission as a reference group the last months of my tenure with the mission.
Now this, as you can imagine, is not really how organizations, especially total ones, expect things to be set up. No, they want the front seat from the get go. But I hadn't joined the military (or the CIA) and I expected the mission to be a reasonable organization, which was (in my view) an errant perspective. That is, unlike many (but not all) other ministries, they didn't seem very open to new ideas about ministry and the issue was only, plain and simple, how well you were going to accept their way of doing things (and if you asked too many questions you probably didn't have the right attitude yet, although by asking the questions you'd undoubtedly clarify where exactly the problems were coming from in your not conforming.)
Another problem here is that it was pretty hard for me to identify with the reference group that I was supposed to be the most like - the other secretaries. The thing was, and I think I've mentioned this before, that I didn't really see myself as a secretary. All my studies had been for full-time mission work and I'd only taken on office jobs (often temp jobs) to earn money while I prepared for the professional work I'd studied for. It's very possible that if the mission had give me a different reference group I'd have succumbed more easily.
***
"To an individual, a reference group is an audience - shared, real or imagined - to whom certain values are assigned. More importantly, this audience is the one before which the individual is trying to maintain or increase his standing." (p. 91)
This most definitely does not describe my view of the other secretaries as a reference group. It's not that I didn't want to associate with them, it's just that they weren't my reference group and I didn't particularly see them in that way, as I've just explained above. I didn't really care too much what the other secretaries thought of me and I didn't want to be like them, not that there was anything wrong with them, but they just weren't what I aspired to or how I viewed myself. I didn't see a conflict between working as a secretary and having people-ministry, where the people ministry was more fundamental to my view of myself and working as a secretary was just a stepping stone along the way. Even at the time I was conscious of not viewing myself as a secretary, but I might not have realized the significance of that vis a vis the mission's socialization attempts.
Here I'm going to sort of go off in a tangent, but not a totally irrelevant one.
In recent years I've come to the realization that Evangelical groups are mostly pretty sexist and the roles for women in them are rather limited; being a secretary is one possibility, for example. There were a couple women instructors with the Vienna mission that taught courses for women in-country (i.e., in Eastern Europe), but there weren't any male secretaries, for example.
Another role that, apart from my experience with the Vienna mission, that I found might have been open to me is that of translator to help men gain access to ministry in Russia, for example. This, to me, is pretty demeaning because I only learned the language as part of the whole package of preparing for ministry and not to be some man's translator. To many in Evangelical circles, as you maybe can imagine, this kind of thinking is feminist, and I mean that very derogatorily, because that's how they'd use the word to describe such thinking.
I've been trying to find a short quote I know I've heard several times (but not recently), but in looking for it I found some close cousins to it:
"Being a Heartless Bitch isn't about stepping on other people, or reality TV-style sabotage antics. Its about working hard for what you want, and knowing when to stand up for what you deserve. Its not about demoralizing others; its about self-empowerment. Its not about being arrogant; its about displaying your confidence and intellect as a badge of pride. Its not asserting any inherent superiority or self-entitlement, but recognizing your own self-worth and value."
-- Kat D.
"I do get called a bitch quite often. What I do NOT get called is pushover, stupid, sweetheart, dear or doormat. Works for me."
-- Rebecca M.
Here's one that really touches a nerve for me (pun intended - sorry):
"The brain is connected to the spine. Try to get them working in tandem for a change."
Finally...
I'm a strong woman who strives for excellence in all my endeavors. It used to bother me that strong women are termed "bitches," while strong men are seen as "go-getters." But I now wear the Bitch label with pride.
If a bitch is someone who goes after what she wants, then I am a bitch.
If a bitch is someone who stands up for her beliefs while surrounded by opinionless idiots, then I am a bitch.
If a bitch is someone who despises weakness and ineptitude, then I am a bitch.
I LOVE being a bitch. It feels good to be strong and confident, not giving a damn what others think. I'm not a man-hater; in fact I like men a lot, at least the ones with big brains. I am an equal-opportunity bitch. I hate stupidity, no matter from which gender it originates.
There, I've gotten it off my chest, I'm a bitch. At least according to the above definitions. Back then I was maybe an incipient bitch, with elements of it, but not quite with the belief that I could do things on my own without following in the shadow of someone else (usually a man).I wish I knew this earlier in life, but I had a lot going against me, including family and church upbringing, and it took a lot, mainly being separated from those two influences by half a world (geographically - and I mean Siberia here, not Vienna), to grow more fully in my confidence that I could do significant things on my own.
In any case, returning to my Vienna years now, I didn't exactly see things in this way; I just knew what I believed and didn't like what a lot of what I saw and experienced in Vienna, although much of it was very difficult to make sense of at the time. I didn't think of it in gendered terms, for example. Still, the training and knowledge that I did have even then was enough to help me try to hold my own in the midst of tremendous forces working against that. And don't get me wrong, the gender issue was not necessarily the worst thing I disagreed with. There was, for example, also the politicization of the ministry and the pragmatism (ends justifies the means) mentality.
But getting back to the reference group issue, the "target people" (it really is insensitive to use that term though, like for a marketing campaign in which people take on object status; if I think of a better term that isn't overly convoluted I'll try to start using it, but maybe this one's not completely inaccurate either) were a significant reference for me in that I wanted to really understand them and lower barriers as much as was possible without compromising my faith (e.g., without doing something that would be sin, like joining them in their vodka drinking), but I thought the mission and my church(es - the one in Vienna and back home too) should provide the Christian guidance. Boy, was I mistaken. What I learned in Vienna about that is that the Bible is a tool to be used to back up anything and everything the mission does and to reveal my errors (sins?) in not conforming.
So the mission never really did become a strong reference group for me, I guess, and that proved a barrier to my working with them. But I did see them as holding the golden key to a life of ministry, without which (the key), the ministry I so desired as a career would be virtually impossible (or so I thought at the time). I think this isn't the first time I've shown you the conflict I experienced, but here's another take on it.
I did want to "maintain or increase" my standing with the group, but I equally did not want to compromise my beliefs and values based solely on the desire to "maintain or increase" that standing. That is, I felt that I was being asked to change things that would have implications beyond the isolated context of that ministry, and would have affected some of my most basic beliefs and values. I think it's safe to say that I was conscious of this at the time, which is part of why I could resist succumbing to their ways as much as I did. And when I did in the end begin to succumb it was late enough that they were setting the stage for my departure and I didn't really ever change my thinking (at least not in ways they would have wanted), just my external relations. And when I get to this in the chronology, you'll see that they understood this too.
***
I need to go because I finished my morning stimulator (like a souped up TENS unit) long ago and I need to get breakfast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)